Acidification of the Oceans

And it's too late for us to fix it, even if we wanted to.

True. I was just reading this morning that the Canadian oil reserves are the third largest on the planet, and they're just getting started on tapping them. Whether the climate and ocean changes are because of humans or not, fossil fuel isn't going away any time soon.

I still like reading about the science though, and what exactly is changing and how. At this point, the "why" is irrelevant.

Take it from a real fossil.

I studied science in high school(1960's), long before we even knew we were poisoning the atmosphere with pollution, and distinctly remember learning about global warming and cooling cycles. They haven't changed much over time.

The jury is still out on whether or not man is accelerating this process. We haven't been here very long, geologically.

BTW I'm glad to have you back. You add much to these discussions.

Is that sarcasm?

How's this for a confusing entry on wiki...................

Nonbiological impacts

Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.^[67] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO₂ with implications for climate change as more CO₂ leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.^[68]

They had just finished saying that the higher acidity is going to kill everything, and go on to say that alkalinity will elevate. It seems like at some point it would equalize as the calcium dissolved.

Mark,

Good to see you. For some reasons I expected you to make a comment here.

And I also knew that we have to dismiss the article as "sensationalized".

You digged up some interesting stuff, will have to read and see if this helps me understand.

Cheers for now!

I'm like a moth to flame on these subjects.

Yupp, seen your last posts on this!

Would be good to hear an oceanographer comment on this. Do we have one here?

Looks like you have a very good understanding of the dissociation equilibrium.

Given there is always a source of Calcium and Water and CO2 in that mix that the Seawater is my understanding is that CO2 alone can never tip the ocean into becoming acidic. The damage to animals is due to a imbalance in the ocean waters that do occur frequently anyway. Am I reading this correct?

Its advanced chemistry right? Not really my field hence I posted here.

My half knowledge always bugged me!

Thanks IS

Paragraph #3- yes, CO2 on its own could tip the oceans below a pH of 7- it is physically possible, I would say incredibly wildly unlikely (my opinion & anyone is welcome to disagree). There is a phenomonal buffering ability in the oceans to counteract increased acidity, and the fact that leveles noted regarding increased solublity of CO2 at higher pH values also reflects to the fact of increasing solubility of carbonate salts at lowering pH values. So this adds to the available buffering reservoir as it drops; as these salts are almost invariably strong cations they counteract the lowering pH somewhat and further increase the overall "sink". This can be taken that the snails are sacrificing themselves to counteract manmade circumstances, but I can't see it being realistic unless they have lifespans of 20 years or so.

Paragraph #4- sorry, my post is actually just a very sound basis of mid level inorganic chemistry. How it really applies to an environment as complex as oceans is far beyond that though; really more a combination of biology and chemistry that shouldn't have snap evaluations made on the basis of isolated cases.

Very thorough exposition.

I have to add to the second paragraph, that the gas dissolving / carrying capability is also sharply varies with the pH. The more alkaline water, the higher carrying capacity.

The CO2 poisoning occurs at landlocked lakes, with volcanic activities underneath. The volcanic channels slowly saturate the deep high pressure, likely cold water. While surface water remains nearly normal.

When something disturbes this unstable balance, massive fizzing occurs, the lake "overturns", releasing massive amount invisible, relatively heavy,nonsmelling CO2, suffocating anything close enough. By the way, researchers were able to pinpoint CO2 from the yellowing of the plants in low lying areas around such lakes.

Thanks for the confirmation on the CO2 poisoning- I couldn't remember exactly what it was about & where to start looking.Good comment about the capacity varying due to pH, basically buffering capacity, just I had to stop somewhere!!

A little OT, but interesting. The reading is much nicer without the panic factor.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm

Very interesting.

It sure is. I can't understand why we're not doing the iron seeding. It would explain why the hulls of sunken ships become islands of life. They never seem to mention that the iron comes into play.

The results on page 2, indicate that we could be drastically reducing CO2 levels right now. Hmmmm. It certainly would destroy the global cap and trade scam............and the hundreds of billions of dollars that go along with it.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Martin/martin_4.php

The iron seeding experiment was done. With a good measure of success.

Then somebody proposed to do it on a real scale, and brouhaha erupted. It seems, that too many subscribe to a very specific Goldilock theory: of all possible equlibria, THIS is the only permissible.

And some want to make big and fast bucks on the matter. You do not want to deny them those gains, do you now? Expecting better angels?

I remember the astounding success of that second experiment. It was big news, and then it just went away.

Now I want to to know why. I think I already know, but I don't want to sound conspiratorial. Aside from sucking CO2 out of the air, we would be turning ocean dead zones into thriving ecosystems. It makes no sense.

Here's some speculative babble. We can't find anything wrong with it, but we can't do it because it might do something bad.

And as usual............follow the money.

pointing out that, if done appropriately, they could provide a win-win for both scientists and businesses interested in selling carbon offsets.

Translation: We can't do this until we can find a way to tie it into the cap and trade monopoly that we are trying to create.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/where-we-stand-on-iron-fertilization.html

Introducing iron into the oceans is one of the engineered strategies for reducing atmospheric carbon. As this topic deals with ocean acidification you should be aware that there is a trade off for the reduction in atmospheric carbon. You will increase ocean carbon concentrations and thus in the long run increase ocean acidification. It is likely you will increase the deep ocean acid levels before the shallow levels. That can be of some benefit to buy time but should not be a long term solution to global warming.

Acidification can have massive effects on the oceans. A small change in pH expected to shift about 0.3 point to acidic by 2100 will likely result in the loss of much of our coral and shell forming mullosk population. Although adult shell fish can survive some shift in pH, it is the small larvae that will be unable to form. There have been past massive extinctions in the oceans related to acidification. The Permian extinction saw the loss of 95% of all life in the oceans. That extinction was not man made as we were not around (can't blame us) 250 million years ago. However, large increase in activity of tectonic plate and volcanism (particularly undersea) was instrumental in that extinction event. The ocean pH had dropped about 4.0 full points from today's level.

That brings us to today's increase in carbon now entering the oceans. The small changes now observed and expected can be a problem as stated. What would happen if the oceans were to suddenly become active from volcanic discharges and plate movement? For one thing the carbon concentration in the oceans will escalate and ocean acidification will be accelerated. That raises the question of what is an escalation. We do not even know if we are seeing global warming from natural sources or man made. I happen to think man is increasing carbon in the atmosphere and that there is a likely increase now occurring in natural source primarily from undersea activity of hydrate discharge and volcanism. Either way we should be concerned because an increase in global warming will create situations whereby hydrates can be released from sediments. We just don't have a full grasp of these undersea releases. Is global warming causing more hydrate release or is more hydrate release causing global warming. Google Storrega slide for some info on the methane hydrate releases. A chicken and egg problem that even the Royal Science does recognize. It needs more study and fast. It is also one reason I don't support any cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. We as humans are not going to be able to stop mother nature. One other thing is that the oceans will rebound with time (millions of years) but we likely will not be around.

I apologize for the wind in this post.

Good post. It wasn't too long.

The beauty of iron seeding is that:

A) It can be done in small doses and increased incrementally.

B) All effects are temporary, and will cease within a few months at the outside.

C) And this is a big one......there is a likely possibility that the carbon would sink and stay trapped for centuries. If that was the case, we would be sequestering atmospheric carbon, lowering the levels, and acidification would cease.

I'm also wondering, that if the CO2 sinks to the bottom, isn't the bottom covered with millions of years of calcium bicarbonate from shells?

So I wonder if the potential acidity caused by the sinking carbon would be offset by the calcium that is on the bottom.

Thank You. You are correct that the carbon will sink. However, the iron will be instrumental in increase in phytoplankton and will result in large carbon increase in biological sources. These biospheres will eventually die and sink but they will lower the pH of the deep oceans. Iron has been a precursor for some algae that are not desirable (dumic acid forming bacteria) and that can increase shell fish toxins. The iron hypothesis has been around for a while and lots of people are interested in its application. The jury is still hung and deservedly so. More study and better assurance of effects is required.

The ocean at the time of the Permian extinction was most likely saturated with iron and calcium. The iron that was introduced from underwater volcanic activity. It is also the iron that eventually precipitated and sunk that allowed the ocean pH to recover.

PS Can someone tell me how to get rid of these boxes in my posts?

I looked up some data on the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Most of it is atmospheric, but I found a piece that said that it did cause at least one giant algal bloom that killed off corals, but the corals recovered soon after the air cleared and the algae died off.

I wouldn't recommend throwing 40 tons of iron in the oceans at one time, but slow, steady, targeted releases could have some serious impact over time. I wouldn't even do it in areas that are already teeming with life, but do it in small doses, and bring life to the dead zones that are low in iron.

I'm having a hard time finding any proven, lasting negative impact from any of the trials that have been done. All of the bad stuff seems to be theoretical. Since the effects are temporary, I think the best way to study it, would be to do it on a limited basis in specific areas. Monitoring PH levels would be a big part of it.

Re: #26, 27.

I hear a lot of yammering from the so called scientists. Since the iron dusting is a self-limiting experiment, that occurs every time, and observable any time a big eruption occurs, it is nothing novel, except in tracking and measuring them. So, get on with it. stop complaining, collect data 5 ways from Sunday, pronto. I know, compared to industry their pronto is like forever.

The buffered carbonate / CO2 chemistry is well known in lab environment. Its implementation in real ocean is not nearly as well described. Plenty of research program there. Get on with it, with dispatch.

The oceans circulations are well known, or at least I thought so. Then recently globe spanning streams were discovered / surmised. It is important, I think. Stop dillydallying, and get serious about it. It is a globe spanning undertaking, get cracking at it.

You want to surmise, that the CO2 products stop at midlevel in sedimenting. Why, if never before? Get yourself into gear, and move!

The fellow before me mentioned, that a fraction of pH prevents shell formation. Maybe, but with due respect, in all likelihood, most likely not. Mollusks would not survive until now with such constraints. Hey, another way to dip into the grants goldmine! Essential knowledge, now!

I know a good answer to the hydrate question. At first blush it sounds heretical. Methane in it is a potent warming gas, CO2 two or more decades less so. So, let mine and burn it. That act removes that methane from troublemaking, producing energy in the process. The process has no unknown, get on with it, now!

It additionally cuts down on permafrost thawing, if any. Reducing further CO2 buildup, as it was discussed at length at the Doha conference now.

Additionally, I am particular for Freeman Dyson, top physicist: " The solar input can be reduced by 2-4% by distributing fine titaniumdioxide dust from commercial airlines, tho I do not believe in the necessity". So, what the matter with deploying TiO dispensers right now on certain arline routes, and measure things?!?

All this (and many more) are a research bonanza. And people will vote for it, when they see some, any movement toward solutions, instead sitting on fat behinds, carping and complaining incessantly. And cooking up schemes, and not doing research. And straying off the reservation, and not doing research.

Do I sound impatient? Really? The Manhattan Proiect would have taken a century (or forever) at the sense of urgency observed with this bunch, in general.

And when Mother Nature in one of its fits decide to throw up a new Deccan Trap, we will have to throw out the lazy bums, and put the rest in high gear.

All this remind me of the human genome proiect. Researchers in gov't pay mapped out 30 (50) years comfortable career among themselves. Along came Craig Venter, and wrapped it up in a few years with innovative technology. Oh, the hatred erupting was palpable. That "yahoo" messed up plenty of sinecures. That "yahoo" who dared to be a mere chemist is still wrecking apple carts both in analysis and synthesis of dna. As far as people concerns, not much is new under the sun. Add to it the utter disconcern displayed to the urgencies so loudly proclaimed. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

The pragmatic engineered solutions to global warming is well explained by Stewart Brand's book. He was an early pioneer in environmentalism and committed heresy by writing this book.
The Royal society on Science also agrees on the need for some urgent study and particularly on the hydrate issue. I think the ocean contains more hydrate than we can burn. The undersea hydrate and volcano outputs are barely studied. There is too many things that can cause submarine landslides that can result in tremendous releases of green house gases. A good monitoring system is needed and a good idea of any cycles that can also be part of the issue. I would not jump into the fire with any man made controls until we understood the possible results. I would not be such a prig but just try to get good information about submarine slides and you will quickly understand the limits. I am less concerned about acting immediately as just acting. Studies do cost money but in this case we should not spend money because someone has predicted a tipping point for CO2 greenhouse effect. We have time unless you have swallowed the Koolaid. In the meantime if needed we can implement some temporary solutions when required.

A LOT more than just 'very interesting'! Incredibly interesting!

Nice find!

It's always a good idea to reread articles if you're going to comment on them. Answering your points:

Point 1.

CO2 from the atmosphere reduces the ocean pH AND the lower water increases the rate of corrosion. That's not saying the lower water is corrosive in the same way the upper ocean is, there are many different corrosion mechanisms. But anyway it's usually highly dependent upon pH.

Point 2.

A pH of (say) 8.4 that is going lower is undergoing acidification, that's not saying it IS acidic. Water in a kettle is warming, that doesn't mean it's hot yet.

Point 3.

The saturation horizon is (from the article) usually deep but it can get pushed up towards the surface potentially affecting coral. That's why they're talking about coral reefs.

Finally, I know very little chemistry but a quick Google uncovers tables that show the solubility of calcium carbonate changes by a factor of 100 as the pH changes from 8.0 to 7.0, so the shells can and do dissolve in an alkaline environment.

I'd be the first to admit that reporters often over dramatise actual scientific papers but this time it looks unexceptional.

Just because research doesn't agree with your personal preconceptions doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Just because lot's of people agree with you doesn't mean you're right.

Not sure I how to read your first and last sentence. Did you really mean to put those personal statements in there?

I admit I carry a load of preconceptions which you might have perceived in my question, but I am sure the lot of people agreeing with me put me on the right side of my critics on the article.

But be it as it is, your comment made me thinking and and also gave me some keywords to use in my further research. I came up with an article that proves most of the good comments in this thread.

here it is. Now all I needed to know was what this corrosion mechanisms is.

As you see the Carbonate Compensation depth is something that is there just because of Temperature and Pressure dependant behaviour of Carbonates to go in solution. Nothing fancy there. This is and was and will always be this way unless or oceans are going to be less deep!

So I found my answer which is easy derived as: No the human CO2 factor has by no means any effect on the process that affects the little animals in the Ocean water. Unless we really call ourself having a big impact on the areas of Upwelling of corrosive deep sea water the described process in the article of question is a simple natural one.

Mark hit the nail on the head by calling it "sensationalized ".

And in closing this I found my preconception was correct.

Thanks for your help.

IS

Here is an article from the Royal Society on Science about acidification and atmospheric CO2. It does a good job of explaining the problems and the effects of atmospheric CO2.

The problen is not so much in understanding and even accepting the fact that there are issues with the atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification. I still think the bigger issue is how much can be attributed to natural activity. There can be a lot of futile actions taken at extreme expense and I think we should not go down that road in totality. Some smaller action is justified, like better car milage, better built homes for heating and cooling, reduced industrial air emmission, etc. We should not just sit idle. Taxes will not solve the problem of air CO2.

To think a low shift in pH will not have big effects for people is wrong. There will be a problem with shell fishing, coral reefs, and the life supported by these organisms.

I took the time to go over this article you pointed out and I come up with a bitter taste.

Is this really all these scientist lending their name to this politic-science paper?

Are they really meaning what they are saying?

Ocean acidification is a natural process but is described as almost being man made. What a cr4p.

I did check the numbers: if we say there is 4% or 27 Giga Tonnes (Gt) of human impact on CO2 on the total of CO2 in the atmosphere (ca. 700 Gt) and only half of the CO2 makes it into the ocean (decreasing since the ocean ability of taking all the CO2 diminishes) and we have 2% increase of human CO2 production - 0.54 Gt per year;

further as already has been said

pH is logarithmic. This means an pH increase of 1 needs an increase of concentration of 10 times. This is a lot more CO2 you have to produce to make a visible impact.

Until 2100 the calculated increase is ca. 50 Gt of human production (ca. 100 years). 25 Gt would probably make it into the ocean.

BUT: We have 37000 Gt of CO2 in the Ocean. This is the concentration that has an impact on the pH value!

Can anyone see us producing 18500 Gt of CO2 to increase the pH by 0.5 in the oceans any when soon?
I don't.

Something is very very wrong!

The article is teeming with guilt on the state the oceans are in because of human made CO2. But I can not see this. Sorry I cant!

Even for 600 Gt surface concentration this means 3000 Gt more to increase the ph by 0.5. NEVER.

But we are maybe missing the point that most coral reefs are damaged by tourism and not by upwelling deep see ocean water. Yes we do somethings wrong, but yet we not looking in the right direction.

I think I had enough reads on this for the moment. It was bugging me quite a while but I think I made up my mind. Thanks all for the discussion.

Isnt Pg petra gram and the same as Gt?

numbers in graphic lool alike!

only looks like they given numbers in Carbon weight not CO2 weight. That could tie things closer.

If just some Chemical engineer would come along and sort the whole thing out. . .

Mea Culpa. You are right. Gt=Pg

It is notable, however, that the addition of silicic acid or choosing the proper location could, at least mathematically, eliminate and exceed all man made CO2.

---------------------------------------------

Perhaps the most dramatic support for Martin's hypothesis was seen in the aftermath of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.^{[citation needed]} Environmental scientist Andrew Watson analyzed global data from that eruption and calculated that it deposited approximately 40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO₂ and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.^[8]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Given that the effects are temporary, there is no reasonable argument against doing it. I would also recommend that they stop trying to tie it into the sale of carbon offsets.

Furthermore, the projected cost of iron seeding is complete BS. We've got navies all over the world that are aimlessly cruising around with tons of weapons. A couple of thousand pounds of iron would be nothing. An international, targeted seeding project would be simple and cheap.

I do not want to turn this into another GW debacle, but it seems to me you're making the point that there may be viable alternatives to current political nonsense. Agreed.

I've got it!!! Finally, a good use for all the Cavaliers that keep showing up in this forum!!

I'm not doing any more GW debating. Besides, religion is still off limits on here.

But, if one volcanic eruption caused a measurable drop in global CO2 levels, along with an increase in oxygen.....................what are we waiting for?

And yes, ground up Cavaliers would be perfect candidates to do the job.

Edit: Nor am I suggesting that we ignore global pollution, and cease working on alternative energy sources. Not at all!

My wife is a news junkie and many of the reports she tells me about are pretty vague, factually, but very sensationalised. I have told her, to the point she does not want to hear it anymore, that any "report" that contains words like "usually", "Potentially" (2 in this article), "May" (2) and "if" is not a news report, it is an attempt to sell soap. For instance "The city council is meeting and may raise taxes" is soap selling. The only way they won't raise taxes is if they don't meet. so, a real news report would say "The city council is meeting to raise taxes." -- JHF

Has no one considered the introduction of stronger acids from volcanic events in the southern hemisphere? What about geological area in the specific area where the snails are losing their shell thickness? If there are hydrothermal vents there or upstream in some current, then easily there could be an increase in mineral acidity (that immediately wants to neutralize with the bicarbonate in solution), therewith the salinity and temperature changes causing the upwelling of CO2 laden waters. I like the way the sensationalists always manage to contradict what they are attempting to say in mid-sentence. The only science at play there is the science of obfuscation.

I fail to see how mankind had much to do with that at all, other than too many fat arses driving their big arse suburbans and RV's over bridges causing a local tremor, that "magically" bounces around across the globe somewhere and increases hydrothermal venting. (That last part was a joke, if you didn't get it).